East West rail, Bletchley to oxford line

[Ron Ron Ron]

2 hours ago, KingEdwardII said:

......Why not services like Norwich - Cambridge - Bedford - Bletchley/MK - Oxford - Swindon - Bath - Bristol?

 

 

1 hour ago, Mike_Walker said:

But would there be a demand for such journeys to make them viable?  I doubt it.  You'd need more than a handful a day.

 

Such a "cross country" route would suffer from the same, in not worst, negative aspects of the present day cross country services, N-S.

Slow, stopping too frequently for the longer distant travellers, overcrowding when used as a local train between near stations and just a thoroughly awful travel experience.

 

It's a conundrum.

Not enough demand for faster services, with fewer stops; but relying on all those stops to scrape enough passengers together, to make the service remotely viable.

 

 

 

.

 

[jamie92208]

55 minutes ago, phil-b259 said:

 

You don't get this attitude in France - but that's precisely because generations have grown up expecting the use of their motorways to require a toll.

 

You get exactly that near us.  Between Bordeaux and Poitiers the N10 and A10 (A10 is the toll autoroute) run parallel not many miles apart,  The N10 has been progressively upgraded and is now dual carriageway with mainly grade separated junction the whole way.  You see very few HGV's on that stretch of the A10 but most of them take that stretch of the N10 to avoid the tolls. Often is convoys of 10 or so lorries at a time.  A lot of traffic from Spain to other parts of the EU and the channel ports.

 

Jamie

[melmerby]

1 hour ago, phil-b259 said:

 

 

Also although 'time is money' in logistics - they typical business model has been to employ cheap EU drivers on a 'per mile' basis - oif they get stuck in traffic jams it cost the logistics company nothing while the M6 toll route is longer and involves a toll.

 

 

Lengthwise it's not a lot.

I make the M6T about 1km (well under a mile) longer between the slip roads each end, so not much on a mileage basis.

 

Using Google maps measuring tool I got 43.43km for the Toll and 42.41km  for the M6.

The official length of the toll is 43.45km so not bad estimate at all.

 

(I used more than a 100 points on each road from between where the slip roads start, keeping the measuring line within the width of the Northbound carriageway at all times)

[corneliuslundie]

When we had to move furniture etc up from Kent where it was being stored to mid Wales the driver of the small local removal company was adamant that using the M6 Toll was cheaper for the company. As I don't drive, it is the only time we have been on it.

Jonathan

[melmerby]

1 hour ago, corneliuslundie said:

When we had to move furniture etc up from Kent where it was being stored to mid Wales the driver of the small local removal company was adamant that using the M6 Toll was cheaper for the company. As I don't drive, it is the only time we have been on it.

Jonathan

Cruising along at 50/60mph rather than stop/start at lesser speeds saves fuel.

[Northmoor]

43 minutes ago, melmerby said:

Cruising along at 50/60mph rather than stop/start at lesser speeds saves fuel.

More importantly, a removals lorry has a crew of more than one, possibly three.  So delaying the lorry by 30 minutes might cost the employer 1.5 hours of overtime at the end of the day.

[KingEdwardII]

5 hours ago, Ron Ron Ron said:

Slow, stopping too frequently

The big problem with the cross country routes is their basic slowness - the lines are simply not laid out for speed. The number of stops is not so much of an issue - although it is much better with electrification than without due to the better acceleration of electric trains & cross country trains are typically non-electric. PLUS, when you look at the Cross Country services, you find long waits at some stations for no obvious reason.

 

Yours, Mike.

[Tony Teague]

Pardon me for intruding, but isn't this thread about East-West Rail, Bletchley to Oxford?

 

[simon b]

2 hours ago, Tony Teague said:

Pardon me for intruding, but isn't this thread about East-West Rail, Bletchley to Oxford?

 

Yes, but this wouldn't be RMweb if we didn't wander off topic from time to time.

[Arun Sharma]

8 hours ago, simon b said:

Yes, but this wouldn't be RMweb if we didn't wander off topic from time to time.

Interesting reference to E-W Rail [and the Oxford-Cambridge Expressway] in this week's Economist.

[Nearholmer]

Don’t tease: what, in summary, does it say? (I fear I can guess)

[MyRule1]

On 25/07/2022 at 20:20, KingEdwardII said:

The big problem with the cross country routes is their basic slowness

Staying OT for a while, it's not just the basic slowness,  For some journeys my local station is either Stansted Airport or Audley End, both of which have the same Cross Country service, a twice yearly trip for me is to go to Birmingham. Most of the time it's cheaper to go via London than use Cross Country. I prefer to use CX as once you have sat in your seat there is no changing or LUL involved. I just hope that is the East - West line does get to Cambridge in my lifetime the fares will be set at a level that makes Cambridge to Oxford cheaper taking the direct route,

[1E BoY]

More negativity today following the IPA (Infrastructure and Projects Authority) report a couple of days ago as reported here  https://www.newcivilengineer.com/latest/east-west-rail-branded-unachievable-by-ipa-25-07-2022/

 

The story has been running all morning on BBC Three Counties and no doubt elsewhere in the areas covered by the line.

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cambridgeshire-62309451

 

Opponents of the scheme in Bedford and Cambridgeshire will be loving this!

 

Again there is confusion as to what constitutes Phases 1 onwards

 

My understanding of the scheme has always been

 

Phase 1 - Oxford to junction with Chiltern Line at Bicester with stations at Oxford Parkway, Islip and Bicester Village (London Road / Bicester Town in old money) - Completed

Phase 2 - Bicester to Bletchley with new stations at Winslow and Bletchley High Level (flyover) / also Aylesbury to Claydon NE Junction - Under Construction

Phase 3 - Bletchley to Bedford upgrade - Planning stage

Phase 4 - Bedford to Cambridge - Consultation / Planning stage

 

However, reports are not consistent across all media. Seems some clarification / consistency is required - something for the EWR communications team to sort out hopefully sooner rather than later?

[Mike Storey]

Essentially, this IPA review is completely naff. It has simply translated the EWR's own annual report, of Stages 2 and 3 being "red" as evidence of the whole scheme being in terminal trouble. That is simply political cannon fodder, to suit the wishes of their sponsor.

 

What has actually happened, and which is pretty common on major projects, is that the continuing risk assessments for those phases, which feed into the Red/Yellow/Green high level risk assessment, show significant problems ahead if the phases are to be completed to time, scope and budget. Stage 3 we can fully understand because of the continuing problems with resistance to the preferred southern route, but for Stage 2, I am not sure where the major risks are?

 

It is not usually of any consequence at this stage of development to see such risk assessments. It is far more worrying if they do not move down a notch when completing detailed design and development, but that is the point of the consultation exercise and the resulting submission to government for the next stage of funding. But we can see how these assessments are actually being used, and not in a good way.

 

(Incidentally, EWR has re-interpreted the original 4 Phases into 3 Connection Stages - see this: https://eastwestrail.co.uk/the-project/connection-stages

 

 

Edited July 27, 2022 by Mike Storey

[Nearholmer]

Stage 2 is probably ranked high in risk because of The Level Crossing and Stations Conundrum.

 

The Marston Vale section has oodles of level crossings, and oodles of stations, and to make it a truly viable, high capacity through route, without causing road traffic congestion across great swathes of the area is to close some of the LCs and convert the rest to bridges, and to consolidate to fewer stations, better located to meet current and planned population distributions. All of which is a recipe for endless, endless arguments at the consultation phase, and huge expenditure to do the job properly.

 

IMO, there is genuine conflict between local and regional/national needs in this section, because the local would dictate turning it into a light railway (as in street tramway, not Colonel Stephens), to serve what is gradually becoming a conurbation, and linking that to Bedford and MK city centres, while the regional/national would dictate a different thing altogether. In an ideal world of public transport it needs both, but we don’t live in that world, so the conflict represents a risk.

 

TBH, this conflict sums up a fair bit of EWR, because if the Oxford to Cambridge Arc is to become a conurbation, it will need decent local (in-conurbation) public transport, the bit that was missed-out when MK was built because King Car ruled at the time, and that means light rail, or pre-metro. A regional or cross-country railway as has been envisaged wouldn’t cut the mustard for that, but would hog the obvious route-corridor.

 

I never thought I’d say it, but if the area is to become a conurbation, it needs a Development Corporation, and some deeply unfashionable central planning and ‘seed’ public expenditure.

 

 

Edited July 27, 2022 by Nearholmer

[melmerby]

 

34 minutes ago, Nearholmer said:

IMO, there is genuine conflict between local and regional/national needs in this section, because the local would dictate turning it into a light railway (as in street tramway, not Colonel Stephens), to serve what is gradually becoming a conurbation, and linking that to Bedford and MK city centres, while the regional/national would dictate a different thing altogether. In an ideal world of public transport it needs both, but we don’t live in that world, so the conflict represents a risk.

What about a Tram Train in the same vein as Sheffield?

A vehicle suitable for a railway e.g. robust enough with a decent turn of speed, say 60mph and also OK poodling around town centres e.g. low floor etc.

 

Quite common around the world with stations provided with both low and high sections to cater for the two types of vehicle.

[Nearholmer]

Yes, might work, I suppose, although I struggle to see how one could interleave a high frequency tram service with a fairly frequent heavy rail service without causing indigestion to both.

[melmerby]

8 minutes ago, Nearholmer said:

Yes, might work, I suppose, although I struggle to see how one could interleave a high frequency tram service with a fairly frequent heavy rail service without causing indigestion to both.

It shouldn't be insurmountable as long as they use something more like train than a tram with proper bogies and not 5 sections on three trucks!

The CAF Urbos 3s on West Midlands Metro are pretty dire on the fast* (?) sections, hunting very badly.

*(E.G. Black Lake to Wednesbury, 70km/hr)

 

They probably look like a wriggling worm from above!😄

[Nearholmer]

Scheduling is the issue. Once you start mixing trains with different performance characteristics and stopping patterns on the same track, it gets tricky, and perturbations on one service ripple out onto the other. I think where this is done elsewhere the heavy rail service is very thin.

 

Anyway, it’s all a dream!

 

 

Edited July 27, 2022 by Nearholmer

[Arun Sharma]

On 26/07/2022 at 18:18, Arun Sharma said:

Interesting reference to E-W Rail [and the Oxford-Cambridge Expressway] in this week's Economist.

It refers to the UK needing to spend more effort on what it does well - in this instance applied biological sciences. The university triangle of Oxford, Cambridge, UCL and Imperial College need better physical links. Economist  ragards it as unpleasantly laughable that the quickest way by rail between Ox and Camb is via London. It also makes the point that this triangle [especially now that its centre [Stevenage] is becoming home to major medical/pharmaceutical firms] will inevitably become a focal point for [wealthy and higher educated] population movement inwards with the concomitent requirements for better transport links.

Basically, if we want to make the best use of our intellectual base, we need appropriate infrastructure.

Simples!

[Nearholmer]

Crikey! That sounds entirely sensible to me.

[Bernard Lamb]

1 hour ago, Nearholmer said:

Scheduling is the issue. Once you start mixing trains with different performance characteristics and stopping patterns on the same track, it gets tricky, and perturbations on one service ripple out onto the other. I think where this is done elsewhere the heavy rail service is very thin.

 

Anyway, it’s all a dream!

 

 

Taking Watford - St Albans as an example there seems to be no agreement between the conflicting factions on how to run one type of train. Heaven help us all if there is more than one  type required.

Bernard

 

[cctransuk]

1 hour ago, Arun Sharma said:

It refers to the UK needing to spend more effort on what it does well - in this instance applied biological sciences. The university triangle of Oxford, Cambridge, UCL and Imperial College need better physical links.

 

Why?!

 

In this age of instant, person-to-person communication, we should have seen the end of business travel long ago.

 

Since there is an imperative to reduce carbon-production, business travel should be banned; end of!

 

Let's be honest, it was never about the need to be in the same place at the same time. It was / is an expected / entitled perk of a certain level of business management.

 

Moreover, the transport companies - in particular airlines - rely on being able to charge silly money for first / business class, as it is charged to the employer.

 

Abolish first / business class and see how many business persons want to travel economy.

 

Sooner or later, we will all have to face up to the constraints of reducing carbon output  - let's reserve travel for pleasure, and at a realistic price.

 

CJI.

 

 

[Northmoor]

58 minutes ago, cctransuk said:

 

Why?!

 

In this age of instant, person-to-person communication, we should have seen the end of business travel long ago.

 

Since there is an imperative to reduce carbon-production, business travel should be banned; end of!

 

Let's be honest, it was never about the need to be in the same place at the same time. It was / is an expected / entitled perk of a certain level of business management.

 

Moreover, the transport companies - in particular airlines - rely on being able to charge silly money for first / business class, as it is charged to the employer.

 

Abolish first / business class and see how many business persons want to travel economy.

 

Sooner or later, we will all have to face up to the constraints of reducing carbon output  - let's reserve travel for pleasure, and at a realistic price.

 

CJI.

 

 

Sorry but that's utter, utter rubbish.

 

The pandemic certainly showed how a lot of day-to-day meetings and discussions could be done without travelling to meet in person, but it would be a very brave businessperson who thought they could win work over the phone.  You still learn a great deal from being in the same room as someone, shaking their hand and watching their body language - in ways we often do sub-consciously - when discussing potential contracts or even current tasks.  It is precisely why industry clusters form, so that businesses can trade with each other by "walking round the corner to discuss it".  Being able to easily pop across from Oxford to Cambridge or vice versa to do that, benefits all those organisations involved.

 

We're not talking about booking a night in an unknown hotel here, this is where six-figure (or bigger) contracts are dependent on customer and supplier really understanding how the relationship is going to work.  And if you think £100k is a big contract, consider that in many technical fields, even mid-level consultants are billed at over £100/hr, so if you're using five such specialists it buys you not much over a month.

[KingEdwardII]

3 hours ago, Arun Sharma said:

if we want to make the best use of our intellectual base,

They are still struggling to cope with the success of Cambridge. The Science Park went ahead and boomed without any other kind of planning to support the inevitable growth that followed. They have been scrambling to catch up ever since.

 

At least the railway line to Kings Cross is now pretty decent - which only makes things worse since it puts Cambridge firmly into the London commuter area...

 

But how dare these places outside of London get a life of their own??

 

Yours, Mike.